Supreme Court Opens Term With Oil Companies Fighting State Climate Lawsuits

Today’s Focus

The Supreme Court returned for its new term Monday, with Chief Justice John Roberts gaveling the justices into session at 10 a.m. Eastern. The first case on the bench involves a dispute between energy producers and states over climate liability, according to NPR and Reuters.

At issue is whether oil and gas companies can be forced to defend lawsuits in state courts that seek to hold them financially responsible for damage tied to climate change. Boulder County, Colorado, is among the local governments pressing such claims, and the companies want the litigation blocked, Reuters reported.

The outcome could determine where a wave of similar suits filed by cities and counties ends up being heard. The Washington Post described the stakes as reaching well beyond the energy sector.

The climate case is only the opening act. Fox News reported that the term’s argument calendar also features a religious liberty fight over whether states may bar faith-based schools from a taxpayer-funded preschool choice program.

The justices are also set to weigh state bans on certain semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15-style weapons, and a voting-rights dispute over requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register.

The term opens amid continued scrutiny of the court’s public image. Appellate attorney Thomas Dupree told Fox News that Roberts, an “institutionalist,” is leading at a moment when American institutions face unusual strain.

The Debate

Supporters argue

The oil and gas companies and their allies contend that climate policy is a national and international matter that should not be decided piecemeal by individual state courts. The Wall Street Journal editorial board argued that letting local governments like Boulder County set liability through litigation would effectively impose energy policy on the entire country through the courtroom.

Business groups say nationwide questions about emissions and global warming belong in federal court or with Congress, not with juries in dozens of localities applying conflicting state laws. They warn that a patchwork of verdicts could expose companies to overlapping damages for the same conduct.

Supporters of federal jurisdiction also argue that energy producers operated lawfully and supplied fuel the economy demanded. They say holding firms retroactively liable for emissions sanctioned by decades of policy raises basic fairness concerns, and that the Supreme Court should keep these sprawling cases out of state tribunals that lack the reach to address a global problem.

Critics argue

Local governments bringing the suits counter that they are using ordinary state consumer-protection and nuisance laws, the same tools long available to injured communities. They say the companies are seeking special treatment to escape accountability for alleged deception about their products.

The Washington Post noted that the plaintiffs frame their claims around what firms knew and disclosed, not around setting national climate policy. Supporters of the lawsuits argue that states have historically policed in-state harms, from tobacco to opioids, and climate damage deserves the same path.

Critics of the companies’ position warn that moving every case to federal court could leave communities without a forum, given earlier federal rulings that curbed such claims. They contend taxpayers should not bear the full cost of wildfires, flooding and heat damage while firms avoid trial. Keeping the cases in state court, they say, simply lets the facts be tested.

What the experts say

Legal scholars describe the dispute as a technical but consequential question of jurisdiction rather than a direct ruling on climate science. The Supreme Court has already touched the issue, sending a related Baltimore case back to lower courts in 2021 to sort out which venue applies.

Researchers tracking the litigation count more than two dozen climate liability suits filed by states and municipalities, according to data compiled by Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Most remain in early procedural stages, with the forum question repeatedly delaying the underlying merits.

On the court’s standing with the public, Gallup polling has shown approval of the Supreme Court near historic lows in recent years, hovering around 40 percent or below. Political scientists note that the court’s legitimacy has historically rested on perceptions of independence, a point Roberts has emphasized in past year-end reports. Scholars caution that a single term rarely resets those perceptions, and that the climate, gun and voting cases will each be measured against them.

By the Numbers

10 a.m. EDT: the time Chief Justice John Roberts called the court into session Monday to begin the new term, per Fox News.

2: the number of oral arguments scheduled for the opening day, according to Fox News.

1: Boulder County, Colorado, is among the local governments seeking to hold energy firms liable in state court, Reuters reported.

4: major issue areas on the docket, covering executive power, gun rights, religious liberty and voting rules, per Fox News.

2021: the year the Supreme Court returned a Baltimore climate suit to lower courts over the jurisdiction question.

24+: climate liability suits filed by U.S. states and cities tracked by Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

~40%: approximate Supreme Court approval level in recent Gallup polling, near record lows.